Monday May 28, 2012

JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION

Prosecutors ask judge to dismiss Strauss-Kahn case

World Aug. 23, 2011 - 06:55AM JST ( 41 )

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

Order by Time Order by Popularity

41 Comments

-1

smartacusAug. 23, 2011 - 07:44AM JST

Whatever happened in that hotel room, Strauss-Kahn is still a slimeball, in my opinion. He's a married man, so he has no business even trying to have sex with the hotel maid.
1

OracleAug. 23, 2011 - 07:51AM JST

It seems Diallo has been grilled repeatedly about the incident, as we have a detailed explanation from her, even if she was inconsistent about what she did after, I don't remember any inconsistencies about her story during.

How about DSK? Has been similarly grilled? Where is his detailed account? He says it was consensual, then his trap closes like a clam. Its a bunch of bull. He cannot possibly have a legit explanation of how he came to have consensual sexual relations with a maid who just walked in the door when just a few weeks earlier he claimed his political opponents were going to try to nail him in a sex scandal. Either he initiated despite worry of a coming honey trap and she said sure, or she initiated and he said sure despite the worry of a coming honey trap. Right.

And at the airport he tried to claim diplomatic immunity before anything resembling charges even came up. Right.

But the case hinges on the idea that if we can find no lies from Diallo about anything, then she is telling the truth about the rape. But if she ever lied about anything, then she is lying about this. And that is just preposterous. Does not seem to hinge on anything DSK does or says. Didn't he say nothing happened before he said it was consensual? And now he says nothing? Right.
1

sfjp330Aug. 23, 2011 - 08:21AM JST

Problem is that she has been inconsistant with her side of the story especially when you are dealing with the heavyweight defense team. They will tear hear apart. The procecutor knows that and if this charge is presented in the court, they would have had time getting conviction. This is all about beyond reasonable doubt, and there is too much doubt in her story. There is no way you can get all the jury members to agree.
0

OracleAug. 23, 2011 - 09:42AM JST

Problem is that she has been inconsistant with her side of the story

As far as I know, not about the actual assault, which is what matters most, but only about what happened after. Correct me if I am wrong. All the rest is but shots at her character, none of which justify sexual assault.

Also, could you tell us what DSK's story is? I don't think he has one. What I see is a consistent story about a sexual assault on one side and no story on the other. Choosing between those two is pretty easy for me. No one says DSK's story is inconsistent simply because he has offered none.
0

BreitbartVictoriousAug. 23, 2011 - 10:02AM JST

The case has been one of the most closely watched in New York in many years, pitting the privileged, super-wealthy Frenchman against an illiterate Guinean housemaid employed by the Sofitel hotel in Manhattan.

NY taxpayers must wish we had not let either of these two into our country.
0

AsagaoAug. 23, 2011 - 11:28AM JST

So money and power gives you the right to rape weak individuals? This is the most disgusting news I have read recently. Women's rights and victims rights have been sent back to the 1950's or before. It seems America is decaying from the inside. I wish his victim well in her case in France.
0

OracleAug. 23, 2011 - 11:36AM JST

So money and power gives you the right to rape weak individuals?

Actually what it does is buy you lawyers who know how to work the system and find character flaws in the accuser. Okay, I guess its the same thing.
1

SuperLibAug. 23, 2011 - 12:19PM JST

The media is giving a confusing picture at best. What happened to the DNA evidence? Is he being released because the evidence against him isn't strong enough or because of the credibility of the accuser? It sounds like there is a case but they don't believe they will be able to get a conviction using this lady. But that's just a guess since the reporting just isn't very clear.
0

OracleAug. 23, 2011 - 01:00PM JST

The DNA evidence was not forgotten. Some think its now irrelevant since DSK says it was a consensual encounter. Of course, before that, his defense team was thinking to challenge the event altogether and say he was having lunch with his daughter at the time. Then the maid admitted she continued cleaning rooms after the encounter and did not report it asap. So the lunch excuse vanished, POOF, and now suddenly it was consensual.

The maid changing her story suggests many possible things. Not only a complete liar, but also a woman traumatized and in a daze, who suddenly realizes she has to nail this guy, but that cleaning rooms afterwards harms her case. Its inconclusive. But DSK's defense team mulling over the tactic that it never happened, then going with a consensual encounter when the DNA evidence comes up? That says volumes.

I am dying to hear his story about what happened, so I really want a trial. It will be darned interesting to hear him try to tell us how this consensual encounter came about. But I don't see any way he could make us believe.
1

SuperLibAug. 23, 2011 - 01:54PM JST

My guess would be the DNA evidence points to sex so the only question was whether it was consensual or not, which might tun it into a case of her word vs. his, at which point her credibility loses the case.
-1

anglootakuAug. 23, 2011 - 02:34PM JST

He should be trialed regardless what status he falls under.. he committed a crime and its sad to think the media is actually sympathizing with him..
-1

anglootakuAug. 23, 2011 - 02:38PM JST

Typical coming from Associated Propaganda Press..
0

OracleAug. 23, 2011 - 04:54PM JST

SuperLibAug. 23, 2011 - 01:54PM JST

My guess would be the DNA evidence points to sex so the only question was whether it was consensual or not

And that is better measured by the reasonability of what they say than by credibility. But yes, the courts will probably go by credibility. I so wish that guy on the show Lie to Me was real and sorting this out scientifically. But this idea of credibility just seems really dumb to me.
0

lostrune2Aug. 23, 2011 - 05:14PM JST

With no other witnesses to the incident, it all boils down to "he said vs she said" and whether the prosecutors believe they can convince all 12 jurors, beyond any reasonable doubt, that a non-consensual sex happened - or how good of a chance for success while spending taxpayer money whether they should even try.

She could still sue him in civil court though, if she can raise enough money from sympathizing contributors to fight his undoubtedly high-priced stable of lawyers.
-1

oberstAug. 23, 2011 - 06:01PM JST

always found the story a bit fishy.....................only a very brave man would put his family jewel in victim's mouth and I don't find that French dude a very brave man. Most likely a " business deal " between the two and she wanted more $ after finding out how rich and powerful he is.
0

LoveNotAug. 23, 2011 - 06:09PM JST

only a very brave man would put

i believe it is not up to bravery, but up to intelligence. We know men lose their intelligence when they see a woman.
-1

OracleAug. 23, 2011 - 09:07PM JST

lostrune2Aug. 23, 2011 - 05:14PM JST

it all boils down to "he said vs she said"

Right now it boils down to "she said, he flip-flop and go mum". And I think his silence says half the story, while things like first saying nothing happened, then suddenly changing that to "it was consensual" once the DNA evidence was announced and his attempt to declare diplomatic immunity at the airport tells the other half.

I think he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure, you could conjure up doubt, it just would not be reasonable.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 23, 2011 - 11:56PM JST

Sounds like a setup all along and he fell into their trap. Now another "appears" out of the blue after 8 years, sure.. Oracle and Asagao the women is clearly a liar. She has lied from the get-go, so it is the word of a liar against his. Now she is going to face federal charges. True justice is sending him to France and her back to Africa. She lied on her application for political asylum.
-2

AsagaoAug. 24, 2011 - 12:00AM JST

So they (both prosecution and defense) dug into her life and said she is unreliable and at fault. The alleged rapist has a history of rape and is facing a legal case in France, but his word is taken as fact. The prosecution should be charged with aid and abetting rape, harassment and causing psychological harm to a rape victim.
0

lucabrasiAug. 24, 2011 - 12:06AM JST

The alleged rapist has a history of rape

Steady on there, Asagao. Whatever you feel about this case, he has absolutely no history of rape.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 24, 2011 - 12:32AM JST

Asagao, well if he had lied it would of been exposed. So another accusing him of rape does not make him a liar. It is 8 years old, talk about stale. Think he is criminally stupid but that is not a crime.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 24, 2011 - 01:46AM JST

It is almost over for him but he did not get away punishment free. He spent time in the NYC jail, he had to resign his position in the IMF and he is out of politics. Not to mention the cost of it all, millions? A powerful man has been taken down. The best he can hope for now is quiet retirement. This story shows the penalty of being unfaithful to your spouse.
1

sfjp330Aug. 24, 2011 - 03:55AM JST

OracleAug. 23, 2011 - 09:07PM JST. think he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure, you could conjure up doubt, it just would not be reasonable.

I doubt it. Prosecutors evidence went from characterizing accuser as a creditable women whose account was "unwavering" to one who was persistantly at times inexplicably, untruthful in describing matters of both great and insignificance, they could no longer believe in her. None of the evidence established force or consent, and the case would hinge on the testimony of the women. She would have hard time convincing the jury. Also, there was pattern of untruthfulness about her past. That included a convincingly sorry story of being gang raped by soldiers in Guinea, and she later acknowledged that she had fabricated the story.
0

lostrune2Aug. 24, 2011 - 04:26AM JST

Ya guys gotta think of this from the point of view of a juror. Prospective jurors with no preconceived notion of the case will be the only ones chosen. Only evidence admitted in court can be used. Anything outside of that, like from the news channels, will be disregarded, including the legal issues in France where DSK has not yet been tried in court, let alone convicted as a rapist. And all 12 jurors have to agree. And let's not forget what happened in the Casey Anthony case.
1

lostrune2Aug. 24, 2011 - 04:38AM JST

So they (both prosecution and defense) dug into her life and said she is unreliable and at fault. The alleged rapist has a history of rape and is facing a legal case in France, but his word is taken as fact.

Not taken as fact, but the burden of proof is on the prosecution side. The prosecution has to prove that he's guilty. The defense does not have to prove anything, just poke holes on the prosecution. It's not an equal sides of he-said-she-said. Her side must go above and beyond any reasonable doubt. (And DSK has not been convicted of anything yet, so the prosecution cannot use the French issue in the US court.)
0

oberstAug. 24, 2011 - 05:14AM JST

they have her phone calls to her jailhouse boyfriend about the French dude and the $ on tape, plus she kept changing the story of what happened afterward........... The defense will tear her testimony to shreds on the witness stand. Why waste tax payers' money on a trial DA cannot win ? That's about it.....................................
-1

sfjp330Aug. 24, 2011 - 05:21AM JST

oberstAug. 24, 2011 - 05:14AM JST. they have her phone calls to her jailhouse boyfriend about the French dude and the $ on tape,

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm almost positive that you can only use taped conversations in court if the person you taped actually agreed to being recorded. And yes, it is illegal to tape someone over the telephone without their permission.
1

YuriOtaniAug. 24, 2011 - 05:33AM JST

sfjp330, who would expect a phone call from prison to be "private"? Second she was not on trial but it would butcher her credibility. So many lies and deceits, the defense would of taken her apart. It is only her word after all. So picture yourself as the Jury, would you convict a person on the word of such a person? So the DA made a decision and stopped wasting the taxpayers money, as simple as that.
-1

sfjp330Aug. 24, 2011 - 07:24AM JST

YuriOtaniAug. 24, 2011 - 05:33AM JST. who would expect a phone call from prison to be "private"?

Prison can record ANYTHING, but it is ALWAYS up to a judge to allow ANY evidence as admissible whether obtained illegally or not. That being said ... know that a sneaky attorney could call for a mistrial because you submitted evidence improperly or illegally. Other situation such as phone call from attorney to client in prison is private and not admissable by law.
0

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 07:39AM JST

Even though I tried, it seems none of you can separate what is pertitent to the case and what isn't. But, neither could your average jury. Credibility is but a side-show. Heck, you could even call it a freak show. Amassing lies she told in the past has little meaning unless you also take the time to amass the number of truths she told, and that would include the things she came clean about. Especially those. Am I supposed to believe she came clean about her asylum application but hold firm on the rape explanation??? Seems pretty crazy. Am I supposed to believe she came clean about what she did after the rape, but hold firm on the rape explanation? That is crazy too. Seems like the woman has a history of coming clean about her own lies, and if she has not come clean about the rape, that would indicate that its most likely true.
0

sfjp330Aug. 24, 2011 - 08:29AM JST

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 07:39AM JST. it seems none of you can separate what is pertitent to the case and what isn't. But, neither could your average jury. Credibility is but a side-show. Amassing lies she told in the past has little meaning unless you also take the time to amass the number of truths she told, and that would include the things she came clean about.

Lies had significant meanings. The prosecutors could no longer believe her and they could not ask a jury to do so. Others including the prosecutors have basically adopted the defense arguments. They appear to bend over backwards to try to excuse their decision to run away from this case.
0

YuriOtaniAug. 24, 2011 - 09:35AM JST

sfip330, oh it is not being as evidence against her. Remember she was never on trial. Also it is not privileged communication and any attorney worth his salt would not call his client. So now he is sprung and the other case in France...really it is 8 years old. Classic he said she said.
0

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 12:49PM JST

sfjp330Aug. 24, 2011 - 08:29AM JST

Lies had significant meanings.

Towards defining her character yes. But I don't find her character to be very relevant or significant. Her lying on her asylum application is also irrelevant to the actual case. Her lying about what she did after the event is inconclusive to the case. On the other hand, the fact that she caved in and told the truth about those two events tells us just as much about her character as the original lies do, maybe more. And the fact that she has not caved in about the actual event (something that would seem less important and less established than the years old lie on her asylum application) strongly suggest she is telling the truth about the actual event.

She has a detailed story about the event that has not changed. DSK has NO story at all. But if you want to go back to character, DSK is also a liar. He lied about having diplomatic immunity and he lied and said the event never happened before he said it was consensual. But, those are just as related to the event as to his character. Why claim diplomatic immunity unless you felt caught? And why say nothing happened only to say something consensual happened after your fluids are found? We know DSK lied about the actual event. We can only guess Diallo lied and we do so based on a judgement of character over past lies. But it seems only me to also include her tendency to crack under pressure.
0

OracleAug. 24, 2011 - 12:49PM JST

continued...

But I don't want to deal with character. Its practically nonsense. That said, I understand that no one wants to risk their reputation on Diallo. Its because its a nonsensical world.

What I want to deal with is the simple question of what possible explanation could DSK have for his lying and how can he explain how his member came to be in the mouth of a maid who just walked in the door? There is no plausible explanation besides an assault. Even being a complete moron does not work. This guy was the head of the IMF for crap's sake! A couple weeks earlier, he said he was being targeted for a honey trap!
-2

BreitbartVictoriousAug. 24, 2011 - 01:16PM JST

The illiterate immigrant African prostitute will settle for the elitist European's cash.

He, being a socialist, will return to power and soon 'discover' a certain productive sector of the economy needs more 'regulation' - after positioning himself to best cash in on the dislocation his legislation will cause in the market place - and thereby recoup his losses.

In the end these two will have screwed taxpayers in the US and France out of millions.
-2

lucabrasiAug. 24, 2011 - 01:29PM JST

The illiterate immigrant African prostitute will settle for the elitist European's cash.

Revealing choice of words there, Breitbart. Everybody else is calling her a "hotel maid", but to you she's "illiterate" and "African" and a "prostitute".

Says a lot more about you than her.
0

BreitbartVictoriousAug. 24, 2011 - 04:41PM JST

lucabrasi - did you bother to read the article ?

"the 32-year-old Guinean immigrant"

"an illiterate Guinean housemaid"

"The case began to unravel weeks later when prosecutors announced that Diallo had been caught lying on her asylum application form, including about a gang rape she said she suffered back in her home country of Guinea."

"In addition, she was said to have discussed Strauss-Kahn's wealth in a telephone conversation with a Guinean friend currently held in a U.S. prison."

NY Times, last June:

"Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself."
1

lucabrasiAug. 24, 2011 - 09:02PM JST

@Breitbart

Not disputing any of the above. I'm just interested in your choice of words.

Why did you deliberately include the fact that the woman in question is African, illiterate and a "prostitute" (that' in your opinion; never seen it suggested anywhere else), rather than refer to her as the "accuser" or the "woman"? Obviously you were seeking some kind of effect. What was it?
-1

BreitbartVictoriousAug. 25, 2011 - 08:57AM JST

Obviously you were seeking some kind of effect. What was it?

I referred to the man in this crime and stupendous waste of tax payers' money as a socialist; it seemed reasonable to highlight the woman's criminal motives as well. It's not like it was coincidence or fate that brought these two together.
1

lucabrasiAug. 25, 2011 - 11:54AM JST

So being illiterate, being an immigrant and being African (by which you mean black, obviously; you wouldn't use it for a white South-African) are all motives for criminality? Which of the three has the worst effect?
-1

BreitbartVictoriousAug. 25, 2011 - 01:05PM JST

lucabrasi

So being illiterate, being an immigrant and being African (by which you mean black, obviously; you wouldn't use it for a white South-African) are all motives for criminality? Which of the three has the worst effect?

"Motives for criminality" ? Sorry. I don't quite understand what you are talking about here. Are you actually suggesting her critics believe any of these are or could be "motives" for her actions?

The woman in question deceived immigration officials, fabricated rape stories, gamed the welfare system and has cost taxpayers a bundle. She's a criminal. She should be deported.

being African (by which you mean black, obviously; you wouldn't use it for a white South-African)

and I called DSK 'the elitist European'. Are you going to try and play mind reader here also and insist I believe that all Europeans are white and socialist?